Yup. That is the first and foremost reason. But then, so is Michigan, home to detroit, which was highest murder capital in the USA. They passed right to carry laws, and the crime rate fell. It's stayed lower for 6 years.

(although I don't really know how the population density/ high poverty areas stack against california/New York, the fact they had the number one murder capital says something.)

hypothetical fact:

There are martial arts techniques to push the gun to the side and punch the attacker in the face.

Yes, and they need years of practice to get to the stage where they're more dangerous for the attacker than for the defender. And even then they're never a sure bet. And, of course, a physically weaker defender will be at a disadvantage, whereas even a weak person can, with practice and correct technique, use a firearm.

hypothetical fact:
Your hypothetical situation is also flawed in that you assume your feint will work, you assume they won't see through it and shoot as you reach for your gun because NRA propoganda went to your head and you think that you're a hero not a victim.

NRA propaganda has nothing to do with it; indeed, my exposure to the NRA is limited to Michael "Creative Edit" Moore's interview with Charlton Heston. But the key thing is that it's not a feint; many, if not most, people keep their wallets in their strong-side back pocket, and most trained shooters carry their gun on their strong-side hip. With a practiced draw, there's nothing to see through, and no time to see through it in.

But of course the delivery matters too; the key is to make the attacker feel that they have the advantage (which, at that point, they do) and to make them feel secure. It's not just a case of "I'm getting my wallet - oh whoops, it's a gun", it's a case of selling it in an effective way.

hypothetical fact:
You also fail to think that when the criminal gives up and you holster your gun, he can just pull his gun back out and shoot you now that he knows where your gun is.

Er... who said anything about holstering up as soon as the crim "gives up"? As long as the criminal is a threat, the sights remain on them. The gun only goes back in the holster once the criminal is either secured, neutralised or far, far away. Thus my emphasis on calling the police as soon as practical.

hypothetical fact:
Finally we have the problem that if it all goes arse up and you shoot him, he will survive long enough to shoot back. Movies may tell you that gun instantly kill but they actually give the shot person more than enough time to kill the shooter before bleeding to death.

They can do, certainly, and most fatal gunshot wounds kill by exsanguination, but that's where the training comes in. Until you are proficient in not just firing a gun on a range, but using it tactically, you shouldn't carry it. Until then, it's a liability rather than anything else.

As you rightly say, there's generally no such thing as a one-shot stop. There are a number of drills intended to maximise stopping power - the Mozabique drill being a classic - and of course calibre selection is a major consideration, but shot placement is key. That's why you never shoot to wound, or fire warning shots; leg shots look good on film and in a courtroom, but they're ineffective and difficult to shoot accurately. The aim is to neutralise the threat, and while "neutralise" is often seen as a euphemism to avoid having to say "kill", it is a specific and warranted distinction; shooting is to neutralise the threat, not the person. Yes, it often means the attacker will be killed, but it's not the aim.

I seem to have drifted somewhat from the point, so here it is: enough accurate fire to centre mass will put an attacker down quickly enough to prevent return fire. If it doesn't, chances are they're chemically assisted and unlikely to leave with just a wallet anyway.

hypothetical fact:
I also enjoy the paradox in being trained to use a gun safely, unless you bring a wall of bulletproof glass around a gun is never safe.

I use guns safely. The guns themselves are not safe, but the uses to which I put them are. It's not as contradictory as you think.

And, of course, there's no such thing as bulletproof glass. ;-)

hypothetical fact:
Cars and families that can't raise children have the purpose of continuing society with the side effects of ruining a small proportion of their user's lives. Guns have the purpose of destroying society with the side effects of giving people a false sense of security; as evidenced in your belief that a gun will help you rather than give a criminal a much better reason to shoot you before you fight back.

Guns have, fundamentally, the purpose of sending a projectile downrange. More specifically, they have the legitimate purposes of hunting food, shooting cardboard targets, controlling animal populations, and defending people against other people. The side effect is that they, like cars or bottles or knives or sticks, have the potential for abuse.

The problem is that guns have become a very emotive subject, so people have trouble approaching them rationally. Show a person a gun and their reaction will, in many cases, be visceral rather than considered.

On reflection, though, a gun is ultimately just a tool. A murder may be committed with any weapon from a fist to a gun to a bomb, but the fundamental crime is still murder.

And that, more than anything else, is the main thing. Why not address the real issue, rather than the means to it? Murder is illegal; is that not enough?

hypothetical fact:
Finally of couse people that pick up guns are no longer victims, they become a danger to themselves and everyone they percieve as a threat, out of thought or heat of the moment.

And that is why training and vetting is essential. Force-on-force training with induced stress is vital to establish a quick and accurate decision-making process, to minimise the risk of collateral damage. I'm in favour of tighter controls on firearms, but I believe the option should be there for those who put in the effort.

Oh, and Silver - let me remind you, I'm British, living in the UK and Sweden. Please don't address me as if I were American. ;-)

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:
I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.

READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.

You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.

My advice, settle down.

I meant the post on page 5. I discussed the black market, prohibition, and border security. not much point to requiring a permit, when crooks can easily buy theirs off the black market

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

Jesus Christ.

It's not a matter of 'owning a gun makes you a rabid serial killer redneck' OR 'the moment guns go you lose all your rights I'm a free man till I die America is more free than your European nanny state no-balls OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEE' (that one's for AntiThom). A balance can be struck here.

Let them keep their guns but train them to handle guns responsibly and crime rates will drop. Someone has already used this wise argument and both lobbies just passed over it like it was never said.

Absolutely right - training (and vetting) is the key. Going from memory, the vast majority of gun-related deaths (in civilians, at least) result from accidents caused by poor gun handling or storage. A simple measure like effective training would make a huge dent in firearm-related deaths and injuries.

Cahlee:

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:
I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.

READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.

You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.

My advice, settle down.

I meant the post on page 5. I discussed the black market, prohibition, and border security. not much point to requiring a permit, when crooks can easily buy theirs off the black market

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has). Currently, gun control increases crime rate, and right to carry decreases it in America. A lot of changes would have to happen before gun control is viable. Without those changes, it's not a step in the right direction, it's suicide. Moreover, in the case of taking away our "military" guns this still wouldn't solve the whole, "corrupt government rigging elections" thing. We always like to think the brutality of the past is behind us. But the only thing keeping it behind us are measures designed to prevent history from repeating itself. Leaving governments on the honor system-even if it's unlikely the government officials will start rigging elections anytime soon-means that if it did happen, we would pretty much have to pray that non-violent resistance works.

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:

RelexCryo:

Cahlee:
I personally think gun restrictions are a great idea. We have them in Australia and I think we're much better off for it.

READ MY POST. WHAT WORKS IN AUSTRALIA DOESN'T WORK HERE.

You do realise that it isn't illegal for Australians to have guns, dont you? Restrictions are that there are weapons that we cant have like super dooper kill-tastic semi automatics, and that if we do want a gun that we know how to use them. So, why cant america just restrict the horrible guns and make sure that those who decide that they would like a gun have gone through the proper procedures and know how to use them.

My advice, settle down.

I meant the post on page 5. I discussed the black market, prohibition, and border security. not much point to requiring a permit, when crooks can easily buy theirs off the black market

So would you rather stay stoic or try to take a step in the right direction? Sure this wont eradicate the problem completely, but isn't it better to move forward then to argue against change to try and decrease gun violence just a little? Each new step makes a difference, regardless of how small. I always wonder about how tragedies like Columbine and those like it may have been avoided if we if guns weren't so accessible. They probably would have gone nuts anyways, but the damage may not have been as bad. I just dont think that guns are the answer.

My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has). Currently, gun control increases crime rate, and right to carry decreases it in America. A lot of changes would have to happen before gun control is viable. Without those changes, it's not a step in the right direction, it's suicide. Moreover, in the case of taking away our "military" guns this still wouldn't solve the whole, "corrupt government rigging elections" thing. We always like to think the brutality of the past is behind us. But the only thing keeping it behind us are measures designed to prevent history from repeating itself. Leaving governments on the honor system-even if it's unlikely the government officials will start rigging elections anytime soon-means that if it did happen, we would pretty much have to pray that non-violent resistance works.

Yes, I understand YOUR point. Want you dont seem to be getting is mine! I'm not saying, lets take away everyone's guns. I'm saying that there are some guns that are too dangerous to own. To protect yourself against whatever threat you think is coming to get you, mexicans, or terrorists, or pandas, you dont need a semi automatic! And what exactly is wrong with making sure that people who purchase guns know what they're doing, and have a safe place to keep it so that children dont open a draw, take out a gun and decide to play cowboys? Yes, other things should be done, poverty should be addressed, border security should be increased. But the lack of gun control is an issue, especially when so many tragedies could be avoided if some small measures were taken to ensure peoples safety when it comes to guns.

Actually, you would be better served with a semi-automatic. Manual-action weapons are really only useful when you have range on your side, while in most self-defence scenarios the speed of a follow-up shot can mean the difference between life and death.

Fully-automatic weapons, on the other hand, generally have little application for civilians. Except that they're great fun on the firing range.

(Speaking of which, I'd be very interested to see if anyone has any statistics on legally-held automatic weapons being used in crime; does anyone know?)

I support the Second Amendment and I'd rather Obama keep to himself. However, I can not debate this topic with particular passion considering I've already been involved in too many topics like this on GameSpot. I care about my position, but I just don't care about the debate anymore. They're all the same, anyway.

Foolish Mortal:
Jesus Christ.

It's not a matter of 'owning a gun makes you a rabid serial killer redneck' OR 'the moment guns go you lose all your rights I'm a free man till I die America is more free than your European nanny state no-balls OH SAY CAN YOU SEEEE' (that one's for AntiThom). A balance can be struck here.

Let them keep their guns but train them to handle guns responsibly and crime rates will drop. Someone has already used this wise argument and both lobbies just passed over it like it was never said.

A level-headed reasonable individual graces this forum. I applaud you.

AntiThom:
What we really need to worry about is the government taking our guns! Obama and Biden are the dynamic duo of gun control and prohibition! Don't let the man fool you, and don't shrug it off either.. it happened in the UK and in Australia, and it can happen here if we let it! Tyranny is a few well targeted pieces of legislation away!

EDIT: Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Right so the UK and Australia are somehow run by tyrannical dictators? And this is due to the fact ownership of guns is highly regulated?

Tell me, if every US citizen has the right to life, liberty and freedom and guns are responsible for over 10,000 deaths every year then surely enhancing gun ownership regulations is really just helping to ensure the abidance of this right.

Furthermore, what about sending soldiers off to an aggressive war for them to lose their lives. Do they not also have the right to life?

Moreover, if you want to talk about rights, what about the right not to be tortured, something the US government widely engages in and tries to justify.

You want to talk about tyranny just look back to the treatment of black people and their legal status in 60s and before. In fact it wasn't until 1997 that the last school removed a ban from students of different races dating.

The United States is built on theft, slavery and tyranny. Its a joke, its citizens have never had true freedom, the leaders just hope that if they tell you all enough that you do and force you to say it every morning at school that you'll all believe it.

Dear Buttface McGee,

I am writing to inform you of your ineptitude. And I may quote the following "My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has)".

Okay, let me stop you right fucking there. As much as I like your journalistic style of "not backing up your horseshit with hamburgers (by which I mean 'facts'. I've simplified it into terms you can understand, you gallstone), I've got to start by contesting this absurd and hilarious unsubstatiated claims.

How does having sensible gun restrictions relate AT ALL to border restrictions. You sound like you spend your nights locked in a cupboard with an automatic rifle, in case and immigrants sneak into your country, and start strangling people.

I've not yet met anyone who takes a look at America and thinks: "Drat, if they didn't have all those pesky guns, we could all walk in there and kill them all. And we'd get away with it too!", they'd laugh, as they were busy stealing your jobs. How is making sure Americans have their guns registered going to get anyone killed, rather than having something of the opposite effect. Also, you are fat. Moving right on...

"gun control increases crime rate" - Brilliant! Amazing! Best comedy routine in years! Listen, you greasy political specialist/ profound scientist, you. Listen. Don't speak another vile word of ignorant dribble. If I were a child, in Australia... the only way I'd get my hand on a gun would be to crack my father's safe, if he were a registered gun owner. If he were not a registered gun owner, then he wouldn't have a gun. Then I would have to go to the TROUBLE of getting through to the black market. How many children NEED connections to the black market? Don't answer that, you're a scientist, not a statistician.

Speaking of the black market for a teensy moment here, it certainly makes sense that there won't be an instant drop in illegal gun sales, but by having every gun registered, it won't be too tricky to work out who shouldn't have one, and how they got it. We've got a black market for guns here too, and it doesn't stop anyone for buying a gun. So Sherlock, tell me why America would still have more gun crime, when a small population manage to get their hands on a black market gun, and everyone with a gun is questioned on it, as opposed to FUCKING EVERYONE having one. Got an answer, eh, tubby?

If gun control increases crime rate, why does Australia have a lower percentage of gun-related crimes than America? (Here's a tip, ask someone that doesn't have the foolishly unfounded bias toward America that you do. They're easy to spot, you can see them at coffee shops conversing instead of eating hamburgers).

Also, you are fat.

David Allen:
Dear Buttface McGee,

I am writing to inform you of your ineptitude. And I may quote the following "My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has)".

Okay, let me stop you right fucking there. As much as I like your journalistic style of "not backing up your horseshit with hamburgers (by which I mean 'facts'. I've simplified it into terms you can understand, you gallstone), I've got to start by contesting this absurd and hilarious unsubstatiated claims.

How does having sensible gun restrictions relate AT ALL to border restrictions. You sound like you spend your nights locked in a cupboard with an automatic rifle, in case and immigrants sneak into your country, and start strangling people.

I've not yet met anyone who takes a look at America and thinks: "Drat, if they didn't have all those pesky guns, we could all walk in there and kill them all. And we'd get away with it too!", they'd laugh, as they were busy stealing your jobs. How is making sure Americans have their guns registered going to get anyone killed, rather than having something of the opposite effect. Also, you are fat. Moving right on...

"gun control increases crime rate" - Brilliant! Amazing! Best comedy routine in years! Listen, you greasy political specialist/ profound scientist, you. Listen. Don't speak another vile word of ignorant dribble. If I were a child, in Australia... the only way I'd get my hand on a gun would be to crack my father's safe, if he were a registered gun owner. If he were not a registered gun owner, then he wouldn't have a gun. Then I would have to go to the TROUBLE of getting through to the black market. How many children NEED connections to the black market? Don't answer that, you're a scientist, not a statistician.

Speaking of the black market for a teensy moment here, it certainly makes sense that there won't be an instant drop in illegal gun sales, but by having every gun registered, it won't be too tricky to work out who shouldn't have one, and how they got it. We've got a black market for guns here too, and it doesn't stop anyone for buying a gun. So Sherlock, tell me why America would still have more gun crime, when a small population manage to get their hands on a black market gun, and everyone with a gun is questioned on it, as opposed to FUCKING EVERYONE having one. Got an answer, eh, tubby?

If gun control increases crime rate, why does Australia have a lower percentage of gun-related crimes than America? (Here's a tip, ask someone that doesn't have the foolishly unfounded bias toward America that you do. They're easy to spot, you can see them at coffee shops conversing instead of eating hamburgers).

Also, you are fat.

Agreed. There are plenty of guns already in America, trust me. Few people are sneaking them past airline security. Border security has nothing to do with your rights, or the second ammendment which apparently has all sorts of rubbish that's just been crossed out with pen, to be replaced with "WE ALL GET GUNZ GUYZ!!! HOORAY!".

People get BUSTED all the time trying to bring guns into Australia. BUSTED. We don't give a friendly tip of our hats, whilst directing you to the nearest K-Mart "Hey, that gun's lookin' pretty shabby there partner. They got a sale on downtown. Why don't you head on over?"

Fuck that. If you've got a reason to have guns, ie Zombie Apocalypse. Then walk up to the police station and they will gladly give you one and register it to your name if you've got valid ID. It's not too much to fucking ask.

That's if they're not already zombies themselves, in which case you're fucked. So hurry up and get your shooting license registered to prevent the zombie apocalypse as safely as possible today.

RetiarySword:

sheic99:

FightThePower:

AntiThom:
Gun Control in areas has provennot only to INCREASE violent crimes, but even GUN crimes in general. Why? That's because criminals don't obey laws, dipshit. And taking guns away from law-abiding citizens only makes them easier targets for said criminals. It's a proven fact, wise up.

Funny you should say that because according to offical figures the murder rate in the US is 200 times greater than in Japan. In Japan no private citizen can buy a handgun legally.

Also, just because a citizen is 'law-abiding' doesn't mean they are incapable of murder - the majority of murders are so called 'passion killers' who just get so enraged they end up killing someone out of heat of the moment. Anyone, law-abiding or not, can do this; taking away guns prevents this from happening, naturally. There was a case where a police sheriff (more than just a respectable citizen, I'm sure) ended up shooting his family out of heat of the moment.

I live in the UK where we aren't allowed to buy guns without a proper license and I am very glad of that fact; our police officers aren't given guns either (with the exception of the armed response units, obviously).

And avykins, that's an awfully big brush you're using there.

That being stated, what prevents the "passion killers" from using a knife.

RetiarySword:

A law won't stop a criminal, but it makes their job harder. How many people from the UK know anyone who could supply you with anything like a pistol. Shotguns farmers have, air rifles a few people have them but not a fucking semi-auto pistol! In your country most people have guns under their pillows. I've never seen an illegal gun in my life. The fact that I haven't sort of proves it works.

I ask you how many crimes have you witnessed? And don't be stupid and use generalizations and stereotypes to advance an argument. Only idiots keep guns under their pillows. Haven't you ever heard of a gun cabinet or a lock?

Well its kind of hard to ban most knifes as there more tools than weapons. Also I have witnessed a few. Couple of muggings, a few fights. Nothing too bad. Also a gun in a household is still a gun what someone has access to.
Picture this; a guy splits up with his girl, maybe she was cheating on him. He gets angry and decides to visit the guy. He takes his gun not to shoot, but to mess with him a bit. There is a problem, can you spot it?

Why would anyone need a firearm anyway? I've never heard of any crime being stopped by a victim holding a gun.

Well, I think it's about 48 out of 50 states allow you to carry a concealed firearm with a license. Muggers don't necessarily need a gun, obviously because you have seen a few. This guy has http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

Guns are deterrents, the knowledge that they are in a home can stop a robbery. Someone broke into my uncle's house. He heard him and grabbed his shotgun, cocked it. Burglar heard the gun and left. 2 examples for you.

zhoomout:

AntiThom:

rossatdi:

Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.

WRONG. Gun Control in areas has provennot only to INCREASE violent crimes, but even GUN crimes in general. Why? That's because criminals don't obey laws, dipshit. And taking guns away from law-abiding citizens only makes them easier targets for said criminals. It's a proven fact, wise up.

Sorry, compare the number of gun related death in the US to the UK and you will see you may be mistaken. Also the murder rate in the US is higher than in the UK. If it has been proven then where is your evidence. I have not provided any because I did not make the intial claim. If however you try to back up this statement, I will back up mine, OK?

I said the same thing so just check with one of my posts to find studies etc that actually prove that you (zhoomout) are right whereas AntiThom is wrong (in the statement not the opinion....even though I do disagree with the opinion).

zhoomout:

notyouraveragejoe:
I said the same thing so just check with one of my posts to find studies etc that actually prove that you (zhoomout) are right whereas AntiThom is wrong (in the statement not the opinion....even though I do disagree with the opinion).

Oh sorry, thats a terrible forum habit of mine (only to read the first 2 pages and final page).

Don't apologize...was just supporting your post and was too lazy to repost the links.

Whether or not this has already been stated, I dont know. Perhaps we all need a refresher...

Amendment II to the United States Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Alright children, what does all that hubub mean? Its a 2 parter: 1) a well regulated Militia. Simple enough, no? National Guard! Sheriff! Police! Whatever! 2) the rights for people to keep and bear arms themselves! Thats you and me, Bubba!

The US Constitution itself calls for the people themselves to have the right to their own weapons, originally to be able to take action in case the government ever got a little too overbearing (Kinda like how England was which lead to the whole Revolution thing). This one goes out to all you rednecks when I say the Constitution protects your right to carry around your little assault rifles...but at the same time it doesnt since it doesnt specify. All it says is "keep and bear Arms" (WTF was an assault rifle back then?)

The Constitution is riddled with loop holes, which is where all our liberal friends come in with the notion of gun control. Personally, I'm not afraid of B Rock or his little vice lackey when they bring up the idea of national gun control or whatever, because ultimatley it is not their decision to do jack shit. Congress will never ratify an Amendment that imposes national gun control, so dont worry and continue stocking for the zombie apocalypse.

What about state laws!?! This is where I might sweat a little. Heres why. States could impose individual state laws for gun control. But, if it gets to be too much, the Supreme Court (charged with interpreting the Constitution) could take the case and strike it down deciding the law violates a Constitutional right (Unconstitutional) and thus, bye bye gun law. BUT, if Obama gets to nominate enough justices to the Supreme Court in his term, he could get enough liberals in there to help impose gun control...then again conservative judges on the Court could decide to hold off retirement (or in some cases, hold off death) until a Republican gets elected again...kinda like how Justice Ginsberg held off retirement during the G W Bush years to ensure a Democrat will be replacing her in the Court...

What the hell am I saying here? The situation is like every other issue here in America: Nothing is going to happen for a long time. Both sides on the issue are evenly matched. High profile situations like the VT shootings will get everybody started and gun control will make some ground, but when everyone calms down and gets their common sense back, it goes right back to before: square 1.

You can argue until youre blue in the testicles, but at the end of the day all that matters is what is written: "The American people have a right to bear Arms." As ambiguous as it is, it IS all we've got to work with. Period.

rossatdi:

Naterstein:

In a mugging situation? Hmmm. If I am already at gun point, sure... I will comply; however if I see it coming, I believe the perp will lose interest once he sees that I am carrying and if he doesnt, well ...

Just out of interest have you ever been mugged? Its not normal you see it coming. Or maybe British muggers are just more sneaky.

And actually the rate of gun ownership amongst British criminals is quite low. I believe we can be quite proud of this "Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales." Admittedly its getting worse of recent but government and the police are pushing back.

No I have never been mugged, nor plan to. I try very hard to never become a victim. I dont go to the shady parts of town, I rarely walk anywhere after dark, if I do I scrutinize every person I see and I put an effort into looking for any sign of danger, I try to stay in well lit areas, and keep a nice barrier around myself. Its about mindset, you have to be observant and cautious. Sure there may come a day when I may let my guard slip, or someone doesnt look like a thug, or whatever. That day I will probably comply if I feel that no bodily harm will come to me either way, but if I see some one trying to sneak or approaching me, I will ask them to stop and try to walk away from them. If they still come at me, then I will protect myself.

So okay, there were two officers shot in those years, how many other people were shot? How many criminals were shot by other criminals?

Naterstein:

So okay, there were two officers shot in those years, how many other people were shot? How many criminals were shot by other criminals?

All you could ever want to know:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

EDIT: just so you don't have to bother reading through, 59 homicide victims overall in 2006/7 compared to 49 the period preceeding. Can't be bothered to read through to find numbers shot at with or without injury.

EDIT2: Doh, it was right there on the web page. 566 serious injuries & fatalities.

I agree the "right to bare arms" was a good idea in 1787 but in 2008/9 with a society like the ones america has is not the society where i should be allowed to buy a 9mm with my milk.

Colombine,Viginia Tech,Red Lake high? i wonder if guns had have been strictly watched i doubt all them people would have to have died in vain.

What do you honestly need an assult rifle/deagle for? honestly its not like your living in Iraq and you would need that level of protection.

AntiThom:

Fightgarr:

AntiThom:

rossatdi:

Also, taking guns out of the hands of the population radically decreases their ability to kill each other. Something Americans haven't twigged yet.

WRONG. Gun Control in areas has provennot only to INCREASE violent crimes, but even GUN crimes in general. Why? That's because criminals don't obey laws, dipshit. And taking guns away from law-abiding citizens only makes them easier targets for said criminals. It's a proven fact, wise up.

And giving guns to innocent people often makes those same people do stupid shit because they have a gun. More guns, more shootings... you wise up.

Again, you are WRONG. I didn't know that personal opinions were always facts. I don't refer to myself as an "innocent person" more like a "citizen". AND 80 MILLION citizens legally own firearms here in the U.S., out of which less than 1% use those guns in a crime. It's the criminals, with thier illegally obtained handguns that are causing the problems here.

Yes, criminals will get there hands on guns if they really need to, but why make it easier for them?

hypothetical fact:

Hunde Des Krieg:

hypothetical fact:
The belief that guns can be used to keep the American government in check is complete bull. For far too long the American government has been destroying any and all rights of the American public, but where have the second ammendment supporters been? Sitting at home stroking their guns because you gun supporters can't face the idea of using the gun in a fire fight, you feel much tougher using the gun to threaten everyone.

Actually more people in this country have more liberties than anytime previous, any notion to the contrary is ignorant bullshit.

In my days we didn't have the governance listening in on our morse code unlike your fancy listening majiggers.

Yeah go ahead be an idiot, talk about how the government spies on you and how they're going to read our brainwaves and blah blah blah. Don't buy into all that crap it doesn't matter. It only matters when they install a camera in your living room and arrest you when you say something bad about them while you're in the bathroom thinking out loud. Get over the conspiracy crap, it's all just that, crap. There were illegal phone taps, I'll grant you that, But it isn't a conspiracy to keep you from thinking your own thoughts or from speaking what's on your mind. You still have the freedom to travel anywhere in the country, do any job that will hire you, and say what you want no matter how rediculous.

Naterstein:

No I have never been mugged, nor plan to. I try very hard to never become a victim. I dont go to the shady parts of town, I rarely walk anywhere after dark, if I do I scrutinize every person I see and I put an effort into looking for any sign of danger, I try to stay in well lit areas, and keep a nice barrier around myself. Its about mindset, you have to be observant and cautious. Sure there may come a day when I may let my guard slip, or someone doesnt look like a thug, or whatever. That day I will probably comply if I feel that no bodily harm will come to me either way, but if I see some one trying to sneak or approaching me, I will ask them to stop and try to walk away from them. If they still come at me, then I will protect myself.

Wow, paranoid. I walk often through central London late at night. I walk the 20 minutes home from my tube station down back alleys over a park, at night. Thank fuck for the UK, and Harrow (safest borough in the city!). The one time I was mugged was at 3.50 ish, on the way home from school.

awmperry:

Oh, and Silver - let me remind you, I'm British, living in the UK and Sweden. Please don't address me as if I were American. ;-)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I'm not adressing you as an American, I'm adressing the subject as an American issue. The topic is mostly about gun control in America, after all, and my post, while in response to you, was directed at everyone.

Therefore, I adressed the post towards America in contrast with my own country, which is Sweden, incindentally. It was not against you personally.

rossatdi:

Wow, paranoid. I walk often through central London late at night. I walk the 20 minutes home from my tube station down back alleys over a park, at night. Thank fuck for the UK, and Harrow (safest borough in the city!). The one time I was mugged was at 3.50 ish, on the way home from school.

You call me paranoid, but I have yet to be a victim of a violent crime, or any other crime IIRC. I am not scanning the horizon, sheepishly crossing the street, otherwise cripple by fear. I am aware of my surroundings and I am aware of those who are around me, this should be second nature for any human.

berethond:

Death Magnetic:
Weapons in general should be prohibited.

-Ricky

Will you still say that when you find out I can kill you with a pencil?

If you killed me with a pencil I wouldn't be saying much now would I?

-Ricky

Death Magnetic:

berethond:

Death Magnetic:
Weapons in general should be prohibited.

-Ricky

Will you still say that when you find out I can kill you with a pencil?

If you killed me with a pencil I wouldn't be saying much now would I?

-Ricky

Well if he got that close to you a gun wouldnt do ya much good would it :P

Death Magnetic:
snipped

The point was that almost anything can be a weapon.

No. Almost anything can be used to kill people with, almost anything isn't a weapon. There's a bit of a difference there. A sword or a gun is a weapon. An axe or a knife are tools very suited for use as weapons. A pen, while useful in killing people with, is, and always will be, just a tool.

Oh yeah, that law is DEFINATELY going to pass...even though it says right on this little piece of paper...oh bugger...what was it called? Oh right! the constitution. You see the government takes this paper VERY seriously and the 2nd amendment clearly states they can't take our guns away...so relax man! relax!

Also guns are alot more lethal than your average pencil and alot harder to defent against you come at me with a pen or a knife i could defend myself you stand ten feet away and shoot me i never had a chance

David Allen:
Dear Buttface McGee,

I am writing to inform you of your ineptitude. And I may quote the following "My point is that border security- and several other measures would be necessary before any gun gontrol at all would help rather than hurt. Doing gun control then border security will get people killed(and has)".

Okay, let me stop you right fucking there. As much as I like your journalistic style of "not backing up your horseshit with hamburgers (by which I mean 'facts'. I've simplified it into terms you can understand, you gallstone), I've got to start by contesting this absurd and hilarious unsubstatiated claims.

How does having sensible gun restrictions relate AT ALL to border restrictions. You sound like you spend your nights locked in a cupboard with an automatic rifle, in case and immigrants sneak into your country, and start strangling people.

I've not yet met anyone who takes a look at America and thinks: "Drat, if they didn't have all those pesky guns, we could all walk in there and kill them all. And we'd get away with it too!", they'd laugh, as they were busy stealing your jobs. How is making sure Americans have their guns registered going to get anyone killed, rather than having something of the opposite effect. Also, you are fat. Moving right on...

"gun control increases crime rate" - Brilliant! Amazing! Best comedy routine in years! Listen, you greasy political specialist/ profound scientist, you. Listen. Don't speak another vile word of ignorant dribble. If I were a child, in Australia... the only way I'd get my hand on a gun would be to crack my father's safe, if he were a registered gun owner. If he were not a registered gun owner, then he wouldn't have a gun. Then I would have to go to the TROUBLE of getting through to the black market. How many children NEED connections to the black market? Don't answer that, you're a scientist, not a statistician.

Speaking of the black market for a teensy moment here, it certainly makes sense that there won't be an instant drop in illegal gun sales, but by having every gun registered, it won't be too tricky to work out who shouldn't have one, and how they got it. We've got a black market for guns here too, and it doesn't stop anyone for buying a gun. So Sherlock, tell me why America would still have more gun crime, when a small population manage to get their hands on a black market gun, and everyone with a gun is questioned on it, as opposed to FUCKING EVERYONE having one. Got an answer, eh, tubby?

If gun control increases crime rate, why does Australia have a lower percentage of gun-related crimes than America? (Here's a tip, ask someone that doesn't have the foolishly unfounded bias toward America that you do. They're easy to spot, you can see them at coffee shops conversing instead of eating hamburgers).

Also, you are fat.

I would personally appreciate it if you read this entire post before respondng for the sake of integrity.

First of all,I have nothing against Mexicans. On average, they aren't any worse than we are. But if we increased Legal immigration and then pumped up border security, we could let them in, AND seriously hamper smugglers. And how exactly are we supposed to know a crook has an un registered black market handgun, if he keeps it under his mattress? Yeah, we can question him after we catch him, but the same method would theoretically stop the sell of weed. Doesn't change the fact a lot of weed is sold here. Secondly, I don't think America is better than other countries. We are dumber and more courrpt in many ways. Our tendency to appoint oppressive dictators over South American countries that make decisions we don't like is just evil, for example. The government's putting a restriction on watts in car headlights rather than lumens is another good example. That doesn't automatically mean the traditional stance on gun control in America is wrong also, however.

In America, we have almost no border security. Which is both why so many mexicans can simply walk over the border and also why all bans and control laws fail here.Michigan- which used to have the number one murder city(Detroit)had gun control. They decided to pass right to carry laws. Citizens suddenly had the right to carry guns everywhere. The crime rate dropped, and it has stayed low. In new england, the state with the lowest crime rate is Vermont. They have the least gun control. The state with the highest, (I believe it is massachussets) has the most gun control. What's more, while the states in New England with the highest crime rate aren't a COMPLETE inversion of the states with the least gun control, they are pretty close.

Morever, when the Supreme Court overturned many of the gun control laws in Illinois, Obama's home state, the crime rate was LOWERED. It was also estimated by the Washington state police that 95% of all crimes are commited with guns that are stolen or purchased off the black market. Of course bans would remove the "stolen" ones, but not the BM ones.

It has to do with smugglers. Smugglers simply sell crooks the weapons on the black market....only border security stops the black market. Of course the black market is everywhere, but here it is rampant, we have a ludicrous lack of border security. If you read my post on page 5, you would have seen nobody wants to increase legal immigration...which would allow us to actually have useful gun control and let more people into this country. Moreover, the Proven Facts I mentioned in guns increasing the crime rate? Mentioned on page 5 also. Please do research before opening your mouth. Gun Control can't function until smugglers are shut down. Teflon Coated bullets are illegal in all 50 states, and yet people still have them here. Why? Smugglers. Smugglers have the run of the place because of the lack of border security.

Now you have assumed I am dumb, irrational, and paranoid, as well as blinded by patriotism. I'm not. Other countries do many things better than America, such as how Britain transports voting ballots(much less suceptible to mishaps) and how Europe in general has more Public bathrooms. However, when Michigan passed right to carry, the crime rate there dropped. In New England, the lowest crime rate state is Vermont....which has the least gun control. So....no. I'm sorry, but you would need to change a few things before gun control becomes viable here. We can learn a lot from other countries, since many of the ways we do things is stupid. In many cases, my countries actions are downright evil, such as appointing dictators over south american countries, because they made choices we didn't like. America isn't a better country, it's just a country. That doesn't change the fact that Vermont is the lowest crime rate state in new england. It also doesn't change the fact that Michigans crime rate fell after passing right to carry.

That said, you have a right to your opinion, and I don't even blame you for phrasing it rudely, since you thought you were helping the cause with your tirade. But I do blame you for failing to do research. Have you ever heard of Ranch Rescue? Formed because the cops don't do much to stop smugglers here. Just because Australia enforces it's laws doesn't mean America does. So please, do research in the future.

Silver:

awmperry:
*Snip*

As I've already said. No. In America outlawing guns wouldn't help. You've got too many of them, and you're too violent.

Here, I don't go out afraid I'm going to get robbed. If I DO get robbed it's going to be by an unarmed gang, a person with a knife or someone with an airsoft gun.

If they do, I give them my wallet. They don't kill me. See, that's the difference. They wouldn't kill me just to keep me from identifying them. I might get beaten up, sure. If I had a gun, I probably wouldn't. But if I had a gun, all criminals would have them too. And pulling a gun on someone trying to mug you with a gun in his hand? You've watched too many western movies. Most of the western world is more civilised than that these days. We don't kill people for no reason, not even criminals, or robbers.

If I do get killed that would be because I decided to fight back, against too big odds, or if I beat the odds, and actually found the guy with a gun, and decided to pull one out myself. If I didn't do anything like that then no, I wouldn't get killed. I wouldn't be safer with a gun. In America, sure, there I need one. Just like I need one if I decide to run into a warzone carrying a poster saying "You all deserve to die". Here, I don't need one. Here gun laws work.

And no, I don't need a bloody gun to keep my government in check either. Unlike you I can actually choose who to vote for, instead of just having about 2 options. And just like you, I decide who sits on my government, and I don't use a gun to decide it.

Ah, good 'ole social commentary about one country's political and social scenes by someone from another country who doesn't have a clue. Get's me every time. I especially loved the part where you act as though your criminals are more "civilized" than others. How droll. I believe that, by their very nature, one does a criminal act because they're not civilized. Maybe I'm just crazy, I don't know. I also loved the parts where you assume someone here would kill their victim to hide their identity and that, were you to be robbed, that you not having a gun would guarantee your life not being taken. Seems as though you've been watching too many cop dramas. Then there's the "you're too violent" bit. That really had me rolling on the floor laughing. I'd kindly ask you to look at your own past, especially those involving your religious organizations, and then tell me we're to violent. Oh, and as for that last part about our voting rights, I guess you're not aware that we can actually vote for whomever we wish. We're not limited to either the democratic or republican picks. I'm afraid to say, many here seemed to have forgotten that fact, but we're still granted that right. One final note, I've voted in every election that's taken place in my lifetime (that I was legally able to anyway), and not once did I "need a gun" to do it or enforce my decision, as you seem to think we do.